If your definition of "good economics" includes Adam Smith and excludes Paul Samuelson, it is at best incomplete.
If it calls the second half of the twentieth century, a time of tremendous advances in economics science, a "mistaken path" - then there are probably major problems with it.
I personally tire of getting told that we do bad economics or that we have somehow abandoned the economics of Smith.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Jeez, Daniel, who is telling you this? Surely the large majority of economists have never read Smith, either the Wealth or TMS and moreover would regard doing so as a pure waste of time. Among the very small group of us who think economists need to read Smith, there may be a minority of this minority who overstate the case in the way you have laid out. But surely, the opposite sort of overstatement is orders of magnitude more important to combat!
ReplyDeleteThere's a big difference between being Smithian and spending a lot of time in Wealth of Nations. I'm not thinking about having us all run around as Adam Smith scholars, and I don't think that's what Peter is talking about either.
DeleteThe question at hand is economics grounded in Smithian principles, insights, and guiding questions.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts on Post-Keynesian economics? Post-Keynesians are similar to Austrians in their skepticism to the achievements of the neoclassical school, but your writings on them are rather scarce...
The main problem I have with Boettke is that he's not specific enough. He's too vague, on his blog he hardly ever targets precise questions and argues about them clearly. This "Smithian Economics" thing is just one example. Horwitz is much better on that score.
ReplyDelete